<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:03 PM Nick Hilliard <<a href="mailto:nick@foobar.org">nick@foobar.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">- politics: probably the most contentious area. One well-known example <br>
is how ipv6 on cellular impacts carrier vs handset control politics. <br>
3GPP specifies that the ppp context for tethering must support SLAAC and <br>
therefore it provides a /64 for LAN connectivity. This means that the <br>
handset applications have as much address space as they need. The <br>
argument goes that if DHCPv6 were a viable option for this, then the <br>
mobile operators would effectively wrestle control of the applications <br>
running on the handset (and ultimately control of the handset <br>
capabilities itself away from the handset software vendors) by handing <br>
control of the number of available IPv6 addresses to the cellular <br>
operator. This is, at least, the reason cited by the Android authors <br>
for the point-blank refusal to implement DHCPv6 in android (bug ID <br>
32621). This argument has been carried into the IETF on the basis that <br>
any attempt to make dhcpv6 a standalone protocol should be resisted in <br>
all cases because this will hand too much control over to the operator - <br>
never mind the fact that it is arguably only relevant on cellular <br>
connections, which are defined by 3GPP rather than the IETF.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>FWIW I think you're misreading that issue. The actual arguments against IA_NA are stated in RFC 7934. They don't have much or anything to do with mobile networks, who have widely deployed (and, as far as I can tell, are happy with) SLAAC.</div></div></div>